I hate it when Star Trek tries to do Perry Mason, with one exception. And the exception is not "The Measure of a Man."
Synopsis
An officer dies in an ion storm, and computer records show that Kirk caused his death through negligence. The man is the ship's records officer, Lieutenant Commander Ben Finney. This sends Kirk to a court martial, and an old flame is the prosecutor.
The prosecution's evidence hinges on this wacky control panel, where the only three usable buttons are yellow alert, red alert, and kill a guy. Video from the bridge shows Kirk sending Finney into a pod, signaling yellow alert, telling Finney to stand by to leave the pod, then ejecting the pod into the ion storm.
Years ago, Kirk and Finney were ensigns on the Republic. Finney left the engines in a dangerous state, then Kirk came on shift and logged the mistake. This put a black mark on Finney's career. The prosecutor latches onto a theory that Kirk reflected Finney's resentment back at him, and somehow that... caused Kirk to be negligent?
Spock decides that the computers are mechanically sound—in modern terms, this would mean, he can't find any hardware faults. It takes him until the end of the trial to realize that he should check for software faults. It was a different time, I guess.
Spock discovers that he can beat the computer at chess, which he doesn't think should be possible. This finally makes everyone consider the possibility that the computer's memory banks have been tampered with. They discover through a preposterous experiment that Finney faked his own death to get revenge on Kirk via court martial.
Commentary
Apparently the Federation has done away with the requirement that all evidence to be presented at court be made available to all parties prior to trial. And that evidence be subject to judicial review. And also that both sides have time to investigate the events in question prior to trial.
If we peel away all the Perry Mason shit, we're left with a drastically undeveloped theme: the dangers of having computers as arbiters of truth.
Now it was the 60s, so the extent to which computers would become unstable nightmares wasn't on many people's radars. Most of the contemporary criticism of computers was that they would be excessively perfect, and thereby erase the humanity from humanity.
They couldn't have known that computing would become dominated by asshole capitalists and mediocre technicians. Even The Book about how computing systems become byzantine and nigh-unusable wasn't published until 1975.
The thing that's contemptible about this episode is, the resolution sidesteps the question. It was forgery all along. Forgery doesn't require computers, and if it weren't falsified video logs in a computer system, it could just as easily be airbrushed photos or imitated signatures or replica wax seals or whatever else.
If you're curious about the only good trial in Star Trek, it's The Undiscovered Country. It's a farce because it's supposed to be a farce. This episode, unfortunately, takes itself seriously.
Edit: I'll clarify, I love "The Drumhead." I just don't think of it as a court episode. This may seem like splitting hairs, but I think there are important differences between it and the overtly legalistic stuff like this episode and "Dax."
"Conscience of the King" has that going on. I didn't really talk about it, but Kodos did what he did because there was a food supply collapse and he had to choose between winnowing the population or letting everyone starve.
You could argue that Section 31 is like that; after all, in times of war the law is silent.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Kodos would be a perfect example if it had been randomized instead of based on his assessment of each person's worth. If he had been selflessly evil.
But, the refrain would remain the same: "Some had to die that others might live!"
Section 31 always felt more ambiguous. They aren't clearly evil or good; they're just, what, neutral-good on the D&D scale? They don't care much about the law, but their ultimate goals are good.
Yeah, I've always marveled at the Federation's hypocrisy on Section 31. Like first we've got Garak's best line—
"If your conscience is bothering you, you should soothe it with the knowledge that you may have just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant, and all it cost was the life of one romulan senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I don't know about you, but I'd call that a bargain."
So it's a little rich for Sisco to then go and be righteous about Section 31.
But just looking at the changeling virus, the Federation pulls off a "peaceful" end to the war, but it only worked because the Federation was holding the entire Dominion hostage. Odo's big act of contrition was only possible because there was something to be contrite about. If not for Section 31's war crimes, how would the war have ended?
On a side note, I have such mixed feelings about "What You Leave Behind," because the ending of the Dominion War is perfect. And then they fuck up the perfection with Dukat and Winn.
I certainly agree with Garak. There's a balance to be struck between our ideals and the practical issue of trying to minimize suffering and destruction. If the Federation were a Buddhist society, they would have happily been wiped-out knowing that not fighting doesn't add momentum to the wheel, but 2 lives for the stability of the Alpha Quadrant? Cheap.
Without the war crimes, the Federation loses like everyone else that ever opposed the Dominion.
What You Leave Behind was okay. I never like the whole Pah-wraiths thing, and I was happy leaving Dukat sobbing/babbling over his daughter's body. Such a perfect ending to his arc: destroyed by adhering to his own ideals. I wish that we could've gotten to Winn admitting that she never felt the prophets w/o the Pah-wraiths. I think it would've been interesting to paint her as being one of the few Kais (if not only) that had true, enduring faith (if not unwavering), since she never had any real experience of their gods to support her.